Change in Management of Employees - Case Study Example

Models of change Name: Course: Tutor: Date: Introduction The main aim of the paper is to look at the how aspect of change in management of employees. There is the need to look at the strands, which can help expound further the change and transition from one approach to another. In short, the main theme here is the process and not change itself. It will be of interest to practitioners to analyze and understand how managers in organizations have engineered change. From either position, and indeed from outside both positions, there has been the need to analyze the value of change process compared to the comment. It has been found out that change process is of equal and even of more importance than the content itself. Other questions have raised debate from time to time. One of the questions is the mechanism that has been used so that there seems to be diversity between companies and from within companies and even between different sectors. Questions have been raised on how managers have come to learn of new models in the course of organization management. In this regard, it is a surprise that many managers have never considered this is an issue that warranted much thought and attention. There has been need to know the role that management consultants have in the process of change (Greenwood, & Anderson, 2009). From experience, senior managers have been known to ask three questions concerning the same: how to intervene, where to intervene and how the change can be maintained. Change is a must at one time or another in all organizations. Change is driven by either internal or external forces. Once a need for change has been realized, management procedures for the same need to be put in place by the relevant stakeholders. At all points in time, there are needs to define a proper plan for realization of its sub goals. Change brings many advantages to the organization in question. It can be argued that one of the advantages that will be realized is the development of new skills and products that will see the competitive edge of the company rising in practice. Change methodologies allow managers or any stakeholders in question to effectively manage change by applying proven procedures in practice. Change is a very important part of every organization and because of this; many models have been developed to help in understanding the change management process. In this paper, a discussion has been given on the types of models available for use in any change management process. A brief description of the available models is given and thereafter focus is put on one model. A case study is done in aid of understanding the model selected for focus. With regard to models theoretical background presented, the model of focus in the paper is Top/down systematic approach. It is chosen with reason arising from the fact that the case study used presents a clear cut analysis for the model. (SWOT) Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats analysis of the selected model is then also discussed in the last sections of the paper in order to justify the relevance of the selected model in the case study. Finally an evaluation of the presented arguments and justification of the model as the most appropriate is also given. Case study (Bradford Metropolitan Council) The case study in this paper is based n Bradford Metropolitan council. The council had tried to introduce change through a holistic and well managed change program that involved all the stakeholders in the council. In order to ensure involvement of all in the change process the management had organized a two day seminar for senior officers. The major issues discussed by the senior managers in the seminar included aspects like the need to get closer to customers, increase innovation and offer quality and effective leadership at all times. There was a discussion of provision of leadership by managers in a top down manner coupled with bottom up involvement (Andrew, & Richard, 1993). The need for change came because of a politically dictated organizational upheaval triggered by the appointment of a new chief executive coupled with the audit commissions’ agenda. In the end a web, of interlocking activities were conceived by the managers. These initiatives included employee involvement in organizational decisions, equal opportunities and commitment, improve training and development, revised package and change in selection procedure. Having arrived at a perfect plan for change, the personnel director and other directorates then prepared a package for execution of the program change. Line manager were much involved in the process and due to this, a sense of ownership was established in them. The line managers were responsible for taking the change message to the lower staff. The chief director and the personnel director developed a plan to oversee the implementation of change. The plan entitled ‘implementing the new management style’ included explanations on techniques for managing transitions during the change process. In the end, line managers were provided with learning tools that were deemed as necessary in managing the change process. These tools included books, workshops and brainstorming sessions that were designed to help them discharge their duties well (Andrew, & Richard, 1993). The setback here however, is that all the stated goals and expectations were not met. Few line managers emerged with the urge to embrace change. The senior most management was confident in the change process that they made most of the decisions in the end without involvement of the other stakeholders. However, managers developed an insight in the possibilities of managing change effectively. It gave them the foundation for embracing change in case of further needed change. It is to be noted that junior employees were not however, involved in the change process. The sense of owner ship and responsibility was therefore not developed by the same people because the change that was being proposed did not put in to consideration their views (Andrew, & Richard, 1993). Relevant model After a comprehensive analysis of the above case study, the relevant model for change management process can be said to be the Top-Down approach. The program change process in itself was a systematic process desired by the senior management and planned by them. There was a seminar held for the managers aimed at establishing the goals and objectives. It was identified that in order to improve, there was need for change in the way the staff handled customers and the way managers offer leadership. These, amongst others that have been discussed in the previous section points out a clearly-planned change process that identifies what needs to be changed and the extent of the needed change. The change needed included a major restructuring program that needed interlocking relational shift between various components of council’s engagement. Models of change management As pointed earlier in the paper, in a bid to understand change management process, there has been development of many models. Storey (1992) came up with five models of change management that can be applied in any organizational change process. The stakeholders involved need to identify the suitable change-management process model that augers well with the intended company change and is bound to lead to realization of the organizational change goals and objectives. These models of change management process are type one model otherwise known as Top-Down systematic approach. The other models are the piecemeal approach, bargaining for change, systematic jointism and finally mixed model. Top-Down /Systematic approach of change management is an approach that analyses the interlocking concepts of any organization. The goal or objectives are normally developed by the senior management after consideration of the elements in play that need change. There is clear and organized planning for the execution of change with most decisions coming from the senior management of an organization. Communication is just relayed to staff via established channels or management committee charged with facilitating change. Until the desired change is achieved, the tools involved in the management and change procedures are facilitated and constantly monitored. Human resource is also monitored and a systematic training is offered (Wilkinson et al., 2009). Change is also described by the other four processes though within different context. Piecemeal model describes change management process, which involves multiple forms of communication to the stakeholders. It focuses on small group involvement in the change process with less involvement of other stakeholders. Bargaining model for change describe a change process in which compensation is offered for services rendered. Concessions that describe certain working conditions and practices are secured from a group that is willing to offer the same (Dundon & Gollan 2007. The Type 4 or the Systematic-Jointism, though similar to type-3, describes a change management process that involves negotiations, but the total package is put together after negotiations are done. There are no discrete negotiations for tasks or activities involved in the change process. Finally, the Mixed Model of change process describe an approach aims at modifying the organizations cultural and structural practices until a desired change is reached. Unlike type-3 or type-4 approach, this approach has no negotiations for discrete or total packages (Gittel & Bamber 2010). SWOT Analysis: Top–Down/Systematic model and the Bradford Metropolitan Council Strengths Monitoring and Control Top-down/systematic model offers an effective way to monitor and control the change process in any organization. The systematic approach defines clear expectations allowing the management to monitor the realization of the same at each level or department. It prescribes guidelines, performance evaluation and trainings that are essential in the change process (David et al., 1996). The approach ensures that interlocking elements like effort and costs are effectively monitored. Proper monitoring and control of any change process are essential in the sense that in allows for corrections and modification on the initial plan in case of any undesired effects (Andrew, & Richard, 1993 Effective planning Planning using this approach of change management is extremely simplified. A small group of management define at early stages the scope of change needed therefore allowing for easy planning of the process. The approach ensures that variables involved in the process are defined, deliverables assessed and structures of realization developed (Butler 2009). Budgetary consideration is also done at early stages of the planning, therefore ensuring that the entire change process is within the planned cost. The model furthermore allows for risk and uncertainty planning which are bound to be met with in the process of change. Simplicity in Execution The execution of change by use of this model is simple in nature. Taking the case of Bradford Metropolitan Council, the senior management had ease in the execution of the same since all the line managers were involved in the process. Guidelines are developed and responsibilities defined hence making the change execution process easier. The model provides for a systematic change process to which a clear definition of each level is made (Buttigieg, et al., 2008). Review is done to ensure that the set goals have been met at any stage of the process. Ease in decision making Top-Down/Systematic approach allows for easy decision making. Since responsibilities are well defined, each stakeholder understands their jurisdiction perfectly well. Individuals can be held accountable for their actions at any one time. The channels of communication offered by the model are also good in nature offering easy communication amongst the stakeholders. Due to these, decision making can be made easier and communicated in a manner that is not bound to cause misunderstandings. Weaknesses Lack of participation Top-Down/Systematic model fails to include all the stakeholders in the change making process. Managers initiate change, make decisions and impose the same on employees. Lack of employee involvement in decision-making made them lose morale for the implementation of the expected changes (Greenwood, & Anderson, 2009). No ownership incentive Changes happening in many organizations mostly affect employees. Unfortunately, the same employees who are affected by the desired changes are not involved in idea pooling and dissemination. This model of change process creates little or no sense of ownership of ideas amongst employees. Manager impose ideas on employees therefore leading to decrease urge to embrace them, poor morale, poor communication, sabotage among other possibilities. (Deery & Iverson 2005). Opportunities Application of technology The model gives an opportunity to use information technology elements in the facilitation of the change process. This opportunity ensures easy faster and reliable means of communication in the process. It cannot be forgotten furthermore that there are IT tools that can be employed for project management as well as scheduling. These opportunities can be exploited based on this model. Threats Insufficient knowledge Insufficient knowledge at any planning stage of change process can cause problems in future. Bradford Metropolitan Council senior management had to consult extensively during planning process. Realizing that there was need for the other line managers to have adequate knowledge for proper implementation, the management developed follow up materials like workbooks and brainstorming sessions. Insufficient information can suffocate change process and in the end kill it completely. Poor Leadership Leadership, if not well organized, can cause confusion and dissatisfaction to stakeholders in any organization. Change of leadership can also affect the process of change. New leaders might not have a clear understanding of the organizational operations and as such, changes introduced might not be well appreciated by the relevant stakeholders. Conclusion The above discussion gives a justification enough that Top-Down/Systematic approach for change is the best model that describes the chosen case study. The model offers many advantages to the stakeholders. These advantages include effective monitoring of the change process and activities, simplicity in execution, fast and easy decision-making and well formed form of communication. Though the many advantages offered by this model are evident, there are also some limitations that need considering. In order to ensure successful change in any organization, stakeholder management is pragmatic. Regardless of the objectives of any organization, an effective organization will manage relationships that are important. Employees have significant influence in any organization and as such, form part of important stakeholders. Non inclusion of employee in the structural and logic organization of a company is a prerequisite to failure. Top-Down/Systematic model is limited in this aspect. There is limited involvement of employees in decision-making or change process planning. Upper managers make plans that are supposed to be implemented by the same employees. In order to curb the negative results associated with it, clear communication channels should be developed based on this model that ensure that employees and junior staff ideas are heard. This will result in a sense of participation and ownership by the same employees. Reference Andrew, P, & Richard, W 1993, Managing change for competitive success, Elsevier, Sydney. Butler, P 2009, “Non-union employee representation: Exploring the riddle of managerial strategy”, Industrial Relations Journal, Vol 40, Issue 3, pp. 198-214. Buttigieg, D, Deery, S, & Iverson, R 2008, “Union mobilization: A consideration of the factors affecting the willingness of union members to take industrial action”, British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol 46, Issue 2, pp. 248-267. David, K, C, Kelvin J, H, & William, J, T 1996, Managing the change process: A field book for change agents, consultants, team leaders, and reengineering managers, McGraw-Hill Professional, New York. Deery, S, & Iverson, R 2005, “Labor-management cooperation: Antecedents and impact on organizational performance”, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol 58, Issue 4, pp. 588-590. Dundon, T, & Gollan, P 2007, “Re-conceptualizing voice in the non-union workplace”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol 18, Issue 7, pp. 1182-1198. Gittel, J, H, & Bamber, G 2010, “High- and low-road strategies for competing on costs and their implications for employment relations: International studies in the airline industry”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol 23, pp. 54. Greenwood, M, & Anderson, E 2009, “I used to be an employee but now I am a stakeholder: Implications of labeling employees as stakeholders”, Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, Vol 47, Issue 2, pp. 2-10. John Storey (1992, Developments in the management of human resources: an analytical review, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford Visser, J 2006, “Union membership statistics in 24 countries”, Union Membership, Vol 38. Wilkinson, A, Baileym J, & Mourell, M 2009, “Editor’s introduction: Australian industrial relations in transition”, Industrial Relations Journal, Vol 40 Issue 5, pp. 358-371. Read More